Civil unions in Australia
Recent debate among government backbenchers in Australia shows that both political and popular support for recognising gay relationships by way of civil unions is gathering speed. However, there will naturally be some resistance and recent comments by David Fawcett (MP for Wakefield in South Australia) really riled me. I have attached a copy of an email I sent him. I'll be interested to see his reply (I'll be sure to post it here too).
Dear Mr Fawcett
I recently read some comments you made to a News Ltd journalist with great distaste and write to challenge a range of your assertions. The particular article to which I refer appears on news.com.au (see http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17662165-421,00.html).
In the context of your commendable attempts to bolster government assistance to Australians wavering in their commitment to marriage, you say:
"We shouldn't be working in that direction. We need to value them as people, but I don't believe it's a necessity in terms of families in Australia to recognise them.”
In my opinion, it is very difficult to reconcile your call to ‘value them [homosexuals] as people’ while concurrently denying them the largely symbolic recognition of a state-sanctioned civil union. I have no qualms about the wish of many religious and political leaders to preserve the estate of ‘marriage’ for the exclusive use of heterosexual couples – it has been this way for centuries and such an institution provides an invaluable societal building block. Unfortunately, however, the denial of a simple wish to have a loving and committed relationship recognised by the state is quite malicious and inconsistent with your wish to have gay Australians valued as people. The nature and worth of a devoted homosexual couple’s relationship is no less than that of a ‘straight’ couple.
You go on to add:
"I think we need to have some very clear incentives to support and encourage marriage and family - that is for the long-term benefit of Australia - and if we grant (gay people) status and privileges across the board, then there's no longer anything that's an incentive or an encouragement for people to work at a marriage.”
I agree with the first part of your statement – the decision to marry has become rather a flippant one and attempts to encourage people to consider carefully its responsibilities and obligations, both religious and societal, are to be supported.
However, your apparent belief that this encouragement should be to the exclusion of gay couples is poorly derived. Surely, there is significant value in the state cultivating (not by marriage as such, but civil union) the lives of faithfulness, love and support regularly demonstrated by homosexual couples. On a simple analysis, stable relationships are more likely to lead to higher levels of economic productivity, greater degrees of community involvement and more familial support. These are clearly valuable in the demographic and social milieu prevailing in Australia at present.
Your further statement that recognising gay civil unions would remove an incentive to marriage (and to work at existing marriages) is again ridiculous – bundled up in what you say are the ideas that:
• People struggling in their marriage must be wrestling with some alternative sexuality
• Granting state recognition to gay couples would cause additional anguish to those in a difficult marriage
• Granting state recognition to gay couples would perhaps reduce the prevalence of straight marriage in Australia
I submit none of these hypotheses are correct, for quite obvious reasons.
I am sure the electorate which you represent has minimal active interest in the debate to which you recently contributed. However, it strikes me your colleague Warren Entsch has been quite vocal in advocating the opposite case, despite his apparently similar electoral demographics. Perhaps you have miscalculated popular support for state-sponsored recognition of homosexual relationships?
Nonetheless, I fear (to be honest, hope!) you may be fighting a losing battle, according to a Sydney Morning Herald story on 1 January, outlining apparent ACT government plans to allow civil unions and even John Howard’s recent statement about his desire for equal property rights for gays (as seen on Senator Andrew Bartlett’s weblog). Although I disagree with many of his policies, as a shrewd political analyst, nobody outshines Mr Howard. If I differed in position to him, I’d wonder at my evaluation of the political landscape.
At the end of the day, support for people who have chosen (or would choose, if the choice were available) to commit themselves to each other absolutely ought not be limited based on whether you are a straight or gay couple. I hope your future reinforcement of the value of ‘marriage’ (in name, and, as far as I’m concerned, concept) is less divisive and recognises the equality of all adult relationships.
Despite my position being strongly at issue with yours, I would be interested in your response to my letter.
Yours sincerely
Geoff....
Dear Mr Fawcett
I recently read some comments you made to a News Ltd journalist with great distaste and write to challenge a range of your assertions. The particular article to which I refer appears on news.com.au (see http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17662165-421,00.html).
In the context of your commendable attempts to bolster government assistance to Australians wavering in their commitment to marriage, you say:
"We shouldn't be working in that direction. We need to value them as people, but I don't believe it's a necessity in terms of families in Australia to recognise them.”
In my opinion, it is very difficult to reconcile your call to ‘value them [homosexuals] as people’ while concurrently denying them the largely symbolic recognition of a state-sanctioned civil union. I have no qualms about the wish of many religious and political leaders to preserve the estate of ‘marriage’ for the exclusive use of heterosexual couples – it has been this way for centuries and such an institution provides an invaluable societal building block. Unfortunately, however, the denial of a simple wish to have a loving and committed relationship recognised by the state is quite malicious and inconsistent with your wish to have gay Australians valued as people. The nature and worth of a devoted homosexual couple’s relationship is no less than that of a ‘straight’ couple.
You go on to add:
"I think we need to have some very clear incentives to support and encourage marriage and family - that is for the long-term benefit of Australia - and if we grant (gay people) status and privileges across the board, then there's no longer anything that's an incentive or an encouragement for people to work at a marriage.”
I agree with the first part of your statement – the decision to marry has become rather a flippant one and attempts to encourage people to consider carefully its responsibilities and obligations, both religious and societal, are to be supported.
However, your apparent belief that this encouragement should be to the exclusion of gay couples is poorly derived. Surely, there is significant value in the state cultivating (not by marriage as such, but civil union) the lives of faithfulness, love and support regularly demonstrated by homosexual couples. On a simple analysis, stable relationships are more likely to lead to higher levels of economic productivity, greater degrees of community involvement and more familial support. These are clearly valuable in the demographic and social milieu prevailing in Australia at present.
Your further statement that recognising gay civil unions would remove an incentive to marriage (and to work at existing marriages) is again ridiculous – bundled up in what you say are the ideas that:
• People struggling in their marriage must be wrestling with some alternative sexuality
• Granting state recognition to gay couples would cause additional anguish to those in a difficult marriage
• Granting state recognition to gay couples would perhaps reduce the prevalence of straight marriage in Australia
I submit none of these hypotheses are correct, for quite obvious reasons.
I am sure the electorate which you represent has minimal active interest in the debate to which you recently contributed. However, it strikes me your colleague Warren Entsch has been quite vocal in advocating the opposite case, despite his apparently similar electoral demographics. Perhaps you have miscalculated popular support for state-sponsored recognition of homosexual relationships?
Nonetheless, I fear (to be honest, hope!) you may be fighting a losing battle, according to a Sydney Morning Herald story on 1 January, outlining apparent ACT government plans to allow civil unions and even John Howard’s recent statement about his desire for equal property rights for gays (as seen on Senator Andrew Bartlett’s weblog). Although I disagree with many of his policies, as a shrewd political analyst, nobody outshines Mr Howard. If I differed in position to him, I’d wonder at my evaluation of the political landscape.
At the end of the day, support for people who have chosen (or would choose, if the choice were available) to commit themselves to each other absolutely ought not be limited based on whether you are a straight or gay couple. I hope your future reinforcement of the value of ‘marriage’ (in name, and, as far as I’m concerned, concept) is less divisive and recognises the equality of all adult relationships.
Despite my position being strongly at issue with yours, I would be interested in your response to my letter.
Yours sincerely
Geoff....
posted by Geoff at
6:58 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home